§ The result
Darwinbox takes the total, Coderbyte takes more of the criteria.
Darwinbox (ATS-integrated) edges Coderbyte (Assessment) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 42. Coderbyte leads more of the criteria than Darwinbox — 4 to 3 — but Article 11 Technical Documentation, which Darwinbox leads, carries 20% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Darwinbox. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Coderbyte 44, Darwinbox 60) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 65% of the weighted advantage Darwinbox holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Coderbyte
Coderbyte is a technical hiring platform offering coding assessments with automated and AI grading of challenges and take-home projects, live coding interviews, and AI screening that grades resumes against job-description criteria and runs agentic phone screens.
Vendor profile
Darwinbox
Darwinbox is an enterprise HCM suite whose recruitment module uses Darwinbox Sense AI (now sold inside its Cortex agent platform) to parse resumes, stack-rank and recommend candidates with stated fit reasoning, run screening and shortlisting agents, and give candidates an assistant for job matching, interview details and FAQs.
§ The record
Coderbyte is filed under Assessment AI, Darwinbox under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Coderbyte is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Coderbyte | Darwinbox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | IN |
| Founded | 2012 | 2015 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Coderbyte 44 · Darwinbox 60
3.2 weighted points to Darwinbox
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Coderbyte 20 · Darwinbox 28
1.4 weighted points to Darwinbox
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Coderbyte 60 · Darwinbox 55
0.6 weighted points to Coderbyte
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Coderbyte 40 · Darwinbox 35
0.6 weighted points to Coderbyte
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Coderbyte 33 · Darwinbox 30
0.4 weighted points to Coderbyte
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Coderbyte 56 · Darwinbox 58
0.3 weighted points to Darwinbox
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Coderbyte 58 · Darwinbox 57
0.1 weighted points to Coderbyte
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -3.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Coderbyte minus Darwinbox.
| Category | Weight | Coderbyte | Darwinbox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 44 | 60 | -16 | -3.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 28 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 30 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 46 (F) | -4 | -3.2 |
§ Evidence
Cited sources and documented absences, criterion by criterion.
An absence is a finding, not a blank: the reviewer looked for a named artefact and recorded that it is not located. Where a source sits is a fact about hosting only.
| Criterion | Weight | Coderbyte | Darwinbox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 26 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 24 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Coderbyte has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Darwinbox has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Coderbyte sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Coderbyte, across 2 distinct source domains, and 31 for Darwinbox, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Coderbyte last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Darwinbox last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
HireAIScore scores are editorial research, not legal advice, and no vendor pays for placement, scoring or removal — see the methodology, conflicts policy and terms.
§ Where next